Re: XEP-0115: version 1.5 revisited

On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Rachel Blackman wrote:

> Now you are supposed to just do a straight out disco
query against  
> the user;http://foo.com/bar#some
string is not guaranteed to actually  
> be a valid query you can perform, which means old-style
clients that  
> expect to do node#ver queries may not receive data at
all.  Thus, we  
> broke backwards compatibility entirely.


This is one of the (several) reasons why I *still* think
that the  
request should still have http://foo.com/bar#some
string as the node.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> 
>> Now you are supposed to just do a straight out
disco query against the
>> user;http://foo.com/bar#some
string is not guaranteed to actually be a
>> valid query you can perform, which means old-style
clients that expect
>> to do node#ver queries may not receive data at all.
 Thus, we broke
>> backwards compatibility entirely.
> 
> 
> This is one of the (several) reasons why I *still*
think that the
> request should still have http://foo.com/bar#some
string as the node.

Well, if we agree that a disco#info request to an unknown
node should
result in an <item-not-found/> error then I would
definitely agree.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/